Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


10 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am now preparing the completion of the N180 form in preparation for a hearing vs Ombudsman Services. A1. Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service - No There really is little to mediate, either the statutory breach occurred or it did not. Also given the amount claimed is £100 there is little point in mediating the amount, afterall this claim is not about the money. C1. Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case? - Yes D1. At which County Court hearing centre would you prefer the small claims hearing to take place and why - My local court For travel reasons. I can expand on this as well for personal reasons. D2. Are you asking for the court's permission to use the written evidence of an expert - No D3. How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing? - 1 D4. Are there any dates within the next six months when you, an expert or a witness will not be able to attend court for the hearing? - Yes I will include all the days that I work as well as a small period for personal reasons.
  2. Shell Energy have responded to the correspondence I sent declining to accept their payment as a gesture of good will: "Thank you for your email. I can confirm that the cheque for £218 is in relation to the courts judgement. This should conclude the matter." I am not entirely convinced this language is sufficient. I think it best to respond one final time as outlined below. Given their continued word games I am mindful as BF suggested to commence another claim for their incomplete disclosure but ultimately I think I prefer to move forward with the more substantial claim for mishandling my data. It is unlikely Shell Energy are going to leave another claim undefended regardless of the amount claimed. As suggested I will list out the distress Shell Energy's actions have caused me once I have reviewed in detail any damage they have done to my credit file.
  3. They have a name, it hasn't prevented them from responding in the past and it was sent "in reply to" their incomplete disclosure, so plenty of previous correspondence for them to refer to within the e-mail.
  4. I will do this, this will have to be sent to Shell Energy not the Ombudsman as it was in Shell Energy's disclosure and it was only they which used the term. Shell Energy are currently radio silence to all my communication (probably on instruction by their legal team/management) and I highly doubt I will receive a reply.
  5. I have no idea what Forsetti is, but it was referred to in Shell Energy's disclosure. I predict althought I am currently unable to evidence that Forsetti is perhaps the name of the "direct messaging service" that the Energy Ombudsman uses to communicate with energy companies. I will certainly be asking the Ombudsman at any hearing if they have any knowledge of such a term. I appreciate you have been busy helping others with their cases which are likely more significant. I believe I am close to producing a so called "slam dunk" that you referred to earlier with regards to the Ombudsman so any scrutiny you can provide is gratefully received. What I see happening is either in the second disclosure the Ombudsman provides data between them and Shell Energy using their direct messaging service, I then go on to use this as an example of how they did not declare this data in their first disclosure. Alternatively the Ombudsman fails to provide the communication from their direct messaging service, which they have admitted exists and that is a slam dunk on its own. Like most companies the Ombudsman has a privacy notice which provides some vague description of how your data may be handled. In the second disclosure I have specfically asked the Ombudsman to declare "which data has been shared with a third party, when it was shared and to whom it has been shared with". The template provided by CAG I believe already asks requests this but by re-stating it there is no ambigutiy whatsoever to what I am requesting and I'm not sure a generic privacy notice is sufficient for the Ombudsman to fail to disclose the above information. It is completely unclear to me following their first disclosure what data has been shared and what data has not been shared with Shell Energy, I believe this is sufficient cause to bring the claim but am not totally confident a judge will consider this in itself constitutes a statutory breach. The issues I currently face is completing the N180. What I want to happen is to delay any hearing until I am in receipt of the second disclosure. As there is an active claim I predict the Ombudsman may not so readily provide this disclosure as the first and may put up resistance this time by either requesting more time, or attempting to insist the second request is manifestly unfounded, excessive or repetative.
  6. N180 pack received from the court regarding the case with the Ombudman, deadline for return is 1st November. I sent a second SAR to the Ombudsman on 14th October, acknowledged on the same day. I wish to be in receipt of this data prior to continuing with the claim to a hearing. What are my options regarding the N180? If I fail to complete it by the deadine is the claim stayed after which a fee is required to re-instate the claim, if the claim is stayed will the defendant have the option to apply to strike out the claim? If I complete the N180 with the intention of undergoing mediation will this provide extra time to recieve the data I requested from the second SAR - statutory deadline 14th November?
  7. I'm pleased to hear that you have had these issues corrected. I have stated above why I believe the process might fail or be denied to me and am preparing accordingly.
  8. @dx100ukI agree it was a result of their poor online payment system, no doubt they will attempt to blame the merchant and refer me to them. I obviously consider they are liable as the payment provider but wonder whether I would need to invoke the The Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999? @Ethel Street Thank you, they have asked, and of course I considered it and would do so, however it is a pointless task because regrettably it was to Shell Energy with whom there is a protracted dispute and they will keep anything they can get their hands on right now. Asking and being rebutted and providing Lloyds with the rebuttal will likely hinder things in the future as they grasp at any reason they can to do nothing. Despite refusing entirely within their final written answer, Lloyds made grumblings of making a claim presumably section 75 after 15 days. However I do not trust this process to be successful so am laying the foundation to continue if necessary and without delay.
  9. Ok thank you for the suggestion but how to go about it? The complaints process has already been exhausted and Lloyds Bank have already refused to take any action - almost becase it was a duplicate payment i.e. that is eventually going to be their defence, that the payment was authorised. I'm not clear on the legal basis to bring a claim for what you are suggesting, which is again why I asked and haven't received a response. Still you seem confident that this is the right way to bring the claim. You appear to suggest not referring to BCOBS at all and I partly understand your reasons why, if it fails as a point of claim it supports a point of defence so maybe it is better to let them bring it up and use it if necessary. My own research - which no one has commented on until this morning is that the legal basis to bring a claim is regarding (un)authorised payments under BCOBS. The reason I proposed the particulars in the way that I did is that the onus of proof to show that a payment is authorised is strictly on Lloyds Bank if I don't admit to it previously. I am gathering evidence to show their payment systems is the root cause of the issue but then what does this become, a claim for breach of contract? I am happy to seek out and scour through any contract I can find regarding payment terms but no doubt they will have prepared clausues for this case. If this is definitely the preferred course of action then the particulars can be amended:
  10. Here we go again, you really are useless in these threads DX stick to debt collection.
  11. Thanks for your input DX, I considered this but also felt it left room for Lloyds Bank to try and claim that the payment was authorised if referred to as a duplicate payment. They will argue that there is no way for a duplicate payment to exist without authorisation. The way I have written it makes no admission as to how the two payments came to exist. BCOBS makes no reference to duplicate payments, only unauthorised payments. If you know of any code, law or contract term that deals with duplicate payments that I could use in my claim I would be grateful to be referred to.
  12. Shell Energy provided the following in their disclosure time stamped 29 Mar 16:10 "Disputed on Forsetti We wish to dispute this case file request, as the customer has had Ombudsman ref EG006118-21 where all remedies were completed. The customer then raised another Ombudsman case ref EG033169-21 for the same issue and also that the direct debit had been reassessed. This case was successfully disputed. As the initial case is resolved, the issue with the direct debit was raised on 19 March 2021. This is within 8 weeks. Shell Energy has not had the opportunity to resolve the complaint without Ombudsman involvement, as per the complaints process, we should have 8 weeks to resolve. No 8 week letter or Deadlock letter has been issued to the customer. Please can you confirm the case will be withdrawn and the case fee refunded." The EO has made no reference to "Forsetti" in its disclosure and has disclosed none of the personal data they may have captured on such a system. If the above is understood to be Shell Energy's response to the EO's message above. The EO has failed entirely to provide it within their disclosure. I suspect there is more data that has not been disclosed from within the "Forsetti" system but am unable to evidence it at the moment.
  13. On 29th March the EO sent Shell Energy the following message: "Dear Shell Energy, Please supply an urgent update on the status of this complaint to Mr Laurence Stimpson and Ombudsman Services within 7 days.Please indicate if the £100 goodwill gesture credit appears on a bill, or is due to and timescale." Shell Energy provided the following within their disclosure time stamped 29 Mar 16:04 "Message from omb re my case EG006118-21 my case was closed all remedies done, customer dd was reassessed and he went back to omb Aziz had that one ref EG033169-21 disputed it and won he would need to deal with the dd issue. The omb have just messaged me to urgently let them know my case is resolved and remedies completed I have responded to that. But I can see that the customer has now raised yet another omb case stating the same issues." The EO has not disclosed to me what reply they received. Am I entitled to see such a reply? Is this sufficient evidence to indicate the EO has not made a full disclosure by failing to provide me with Shell Energy's reponse?
  • Create New...